As a matter of fact, I do not feel the 5600+ is, "Quite competitive." I feel that is giving it more credit than it's worth.
LOL!!! Go the Inteliban. The 5600+ is quite competitive with anything Intel currently sells at the same price.
If you want to point to other Intel processors that are costlier as being better value, I don't disagree, but that also means that the Intel processors at very near the same price as the 5600+ are also not worth buying compared to the $30 to $50 dearer Intel alternative(s).
So why does Intel and AMD have so many different CPU's at close price points if it makes no sense?
but even your link is consistent with my claims that the 3.0+ GHz cores are among the most power hungry processors on the market
I have never disputed that the 3.0Ghz AMD's are particular bad power guzzlers, why you seem so keen to emphasis this as though I had disputed it, perhaps only you know.
Your Tech-Report link does not test the E6550, which is a new stepping that offers lower power than Core 2 predecessors. Do you have some aversion towards using data that actually supports your claims?
I couldn't find a review on the Tech Report that compared the 6550 directly to the 5600+, and didn't know how long it might take to find a reputable site that did, so thought the other review would suffice.
But I think you are over emphasising the importance the average consumer will place on comparing the power consumption of the 5600+ to E6xxx series or E4xxx series. Sure they will know that Intel is better in this regard, but I doubt for a desktop machine it will be such a big determining factor.
BTW, Is your repeated comparisons of the 5600+ with the E4000 series part of a deliberate tactic to paint AMD's products in the worst possible light? Is it not also true that the 5600+ performs better than the low end E6000 range, but you prefer not to mention that, for reasons other than accuracy?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
